What and how significant is teleology?

[sidetrack]

Happy New Year’s day everyone!. This means something

Teleology can be described as “the study of purpose” and a few other things which the picture here brings up.



Even if you said "the meaning of life is to live it,the purpose of it is love…your milege may vary !.

Thinking about it when it comes to systems of thought this is something I can see that the Abrahamic religions “specialize” in having things to say about,in spite of however which way things feel experentially on an individualistic-independent level.

“It’s a part of God’s plan…it’s in God’s hands now…Heaven has a plan for you…all this beauty had to be made by an intelligent designer…this means something…this is a sign that…your on the right track to your destiny…everything happens for a reason” etc are examples of things said with a teleological undertone.

When such things are said (clearly,depending on the person) it might be said in a such a way as seeming to take precedence over describing and articulating phenomena systemically.Ex. the grief,anger,emotional and internal turmoil which might happen when something really unfavorable and unprecedented happens. Cue the feelings of how unjustified it seemed…*cue the impulse find a logic to all this and to look at possibilities and internal coherence.

Thus along with phenomenology and epistemology,imo teleology is another significant philosophical factor in defining what faith and belief is and are. Maybe it “fills in the gaps” at some point right after hermeneutics “did their thing”.

*to paraphrase Imelahn whether he sees this or not

I don’t doubt that there are things out there which blow the notion of teleology to smithereens.

Like a biological take of saying “things live,adapt,reproduce,die. Repeat cycle ad infinitum. Period.” or if you believe or “follow” a definition of post-modernism (like Jean-François Lyotard’s) saying “postmodernism means meta-narratives are no longer relevant and become absent”. “Meta-narratives” here I’m guessing providing the teleology. Your notions of absurdity need not apply.

I suppose that when “it’s overdone” teleology causes rigidity,absolutism,legalism and (at worst) extremism. It’s something commonly illustrated in nightmarish versions of conservatism and fascism and cited as a reason to deconstruct,resist or rebel against institutions.

I could shoehorn stuff about decision-making,free will and determinism,volition,causation and the meaning of freedom but won’t.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

At one point, an attempt was made to introduce teleology into physics under the rubric of “the best of all possible worlds”. Ultimately, this gave rise to the Calculus of Variations*, but that’s about all.

Thermodynamics is pretty anti-teleological, but even it had some minimum principles when thermodynamic systems were near equilibrium (notably, the Onsager reciprocal relations).

I don’t have much insight into how teleology fits into philosophy or even if it does.

*a little more on the Calculus of Variations.

 

[Latias]

I suppose that when “it’s overdone” teleology causes rigidity,absolutism,legalism and (at worst) extremism. It’s something commonly illustrated in nightmarish versions of conservatism and fascism and cited as a reason to deconstruct,resist or rebel against institutions.

I could shoehorn stuff about decision-making,free will and determinism,volition,causation and the meaning of freedom but won’t.

I do not know how your post relates to teleology in general ,except perhaps the sociological thesis that society has some sort of end, but that may correspond to a more Whiggish, liberal political view, not necessarily a conservative one. Alternatively, one could believe that societal order is not apparent in nature, but society should serve to impose some semblance of order (this is the classical Hobbesian view).

I was reading about Magic: the Gathering today because I am going to give a M:TG starter deck in a gift exchange tomorrow.

Well, regarding the flaws of teleology (which I initially thought the thread is about intelligent design and natural theology), just read about “White” in Magic: the Gathering. (You do not need to know about game mechanics). Please note what White is not necessarily “good” or “benevolent”, but White does value righteousness

White as a color is easy to define, judging by the fact that you can simply grab a handful of White cards and get a feel for what White is about. To be clear, White puts value in the group, the community, and its civilization as a whole. White’s ultimate goal is peace, harmony, and perfection — a world where everyone gets along and no one seeks to disturb the bonds of unity that White had worked so long to forge. To govern and protect its community, White makes use of and puts value in a number of broad concepts; morality (ethics, religion), order (law, discipline), uniformity (conformity), and structure (government, planning).

In White’s belief, there is very little grey area in morality (as morality is defined, clarified, and guided by rules of ethics) and thus very little room for straying from the path. White does not focus on the individual, but instead on the whole. Individuals are indeed encouraged to act on behalf of White and stop those who oppose it, even inside its own borders, but their personal views and feelings are often disregarded and even discouraged in a manner, in order to preserve the health and bond of the group.
…

Balance, though synonymous with Equality, is important for much the same reasons. If one citizen excels above the others, the others will desire to become something more (or worse, feel inadequate and suffer a loss of morale), which also leads to others fearing for their own positions with the threat of being replaced. White attempts to prevent this not only through Equality and Balance, but through intolerance for nonconformity. Of course, White’s enemies are not expected to play nicely, so sometimes the scales need to be balanced by force.

White is not a racist color; instead, it is proud to the point that it is elitist. White sees itself and its people as “the chosen people”, better than everyone else. White believes itself to be the best because it fights on the side of righteousness. White sees everyone else as unclean or incorrect in some manner and seeks to defend itself from those impurities, as opposed to persecuting and leading an otherwise unjustified assault on them.
…
A common misconception is that White stands for Good and that it is a fact without doubt. Granted, if you take a random lot of White cards and compare them with Black cards or Red cards, they will likely give off more of a “Good” feel than the others. However, taking the time to really look into what White is based upon, then you will see that White is not always good. There have been several popular movies where White has been the fascist oppressor, the overpowering government, and the antagonist. Takeshi Konda from the Kamigawa book cycle was a prime example for a White antagonist, obsessed with the mysterious disk he held and bringing his nation glory, but losing sight of the individual; his very own daughter. In many movies White has been an antagonist in the form of law enforcement, government, or a cult (The Fugitive, 1984, and the Wickerman, respectively), or as visionary antagonists who commit atrocities for what they believe to be morally correct (Watchmen, Freddy vs Jason, Batman Begins).

White doesn’t always stand for “Good”, but it invariably stands for “Good” in its own mind. For the sake of a real life example, however, fascism is very White in essence, and many would argue that fascism is quite evil, though others would certainly disagree. Communism is also a firmly White doctrine, and often reverts to oppression for the sake of “the good of the people” as they see it.

I could quote as much as I want due to the creative commons license on the site.

mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/White

And I am most certainly not White person (not referring to my race), and I consider myself more aligned with Blue and Red. Because of this, I am not sympathetic to conservative Catholics and moralistic approaches to the faith. My sense of ethics is still fundamentally utilitarian (although it does place more emphasis on virtue due to an understanding of its pragmatic utility in virtue in motivating salutary conduct, but this is still the spirit of utilitarianism), where through reason and with some sympathy towards others, one can evaluate the desirability of a certain course of action based on its consequences on morally relevant agents (or persons), not based on some transcendent code or moral law.